Nikon D7000 vs. Canon 7D : Cheaper AND Better?

Recently, I published a quick comparison of the new Nikon D7000 and the equally new Canon 60D, both similarly priced mid-range cameras from their respective manufacturers. The Nikon fared very well against the Canon 60D. However, in several recent reports, I’ve begun to see the D7000 compared to the Canon 7D instead… and the 7D is a much harder act to follow. Some have claimed that the Nikon is just as good as the 7D at $400 less.

It is easy to get caught up in the hype surrounding a new camera, especially when it hasn’t even been released to the public. But lets take a more sober look at the features and build of the two powerhouses and see if they can really be considered equals.

Thought both camera bodies can claim magnesium alloy body construction, that construction is not necessarily equivalent. Notice that the Canon’s lens mount is bolstered by the magnesium alloy body.

First, lets take a quick look at the bodies. Although the Nikon D7000 is advertised as having a magnesium alloy body (and it does), it is more of a skeleton than the full metal body of the Canon 7D. As you can see in the photo (sorry for the hasty composite), the 7D is metal all the way up to the lens mount, where the stress from heavy glass can make the greatest impact. The D7000, on the other hand, has magnesium armor in many crucial areas of the body, especially along the top and back of the camera, but its front (and importantly, surrounding the lens mount) is still primarily plastic. The D7000’s body, then, is a great step up for the advanced amateur, but it is still not quite professional class construction. No doubt the smaller size of the D7000 played an important part in the body design.

Though both cameras offer a bright penta-prism viewfinder that show 100% of the full frame, the Canon shows the image at full magnification, while the D7000 is 5% smaller. For those of you who spend hours each day staring through your viewfinder, you’ll understand why this makes a significant difference… bigger, brighter viewfinders are always better.

Obviously, the Canon 7D has a higher resolution sensor, at 18 megapixels compared to the D7000’s 16. The Nikon’s sensor can be pushed (H2) all the way to ISO 25600, though having seen the results, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would want to. Otherwise, the cameras have the same ISO range, 100-6400. I’ve found that images from the 7D shot up to ISO 1600 (and sometimes 3200) are quite usable. I look forward to seeing how the D7000‘s high ISO images compare. As it is a newer sensor and lower resolution, we should expect the D7000 to have slightly better high-ISO performance than the Canon 7D… and my initial tests seem to indicate that this is true, especially at ISO 6400.

[Update: After numerous early reports of hot-pixels on the D7000, Nikon has released a firmware update to help correct the issue. They say that it may not correct the problem entirely, but it should make them much less problematic. You can upgrade your firmware here: Nikon D7000 firmware update .]The 19 dual cross-type sensor AF module from the Canon 7D.

The D7000 does have an interesting new 39 point, RGB inclusive AF system. However, it still only has 9 cross-type AF sensors, which make a crucial difference in low light, low contrast situations. The Canon 7D has more than double that number of cross-type points (19 dual cross-type, in fact), and an AF system borrowed from the Canon EOS 1D line, probably the world’s most popular and successful line of sports photography cameras, driven by dual Digic-4 processors. Though it’s likely that the Nikon will perform almost as well as the 7D in good light, I would put my money on the 7D in lower, flatter lighting situations.

[Update: This point was a little quick, and since there have been a couple of questions, I’m going to explain this conclusion in a little more depth.

As you undoubtedly know, contrast is the fundamental ingredient for auto focus in SLRs.

If we consider our subject’s face to be our desired focal point, then clearly the red channel gives the best contrast between skin and background, which is typical with skin. We also get good contrast against the sky in the blue channel. The skin tones are low contrast in the green channel, but this is the best case scenario for the green channel, with an almost entirely green background.

Stop and think for a few moments about what a color RGB image is, or better yet, open a few images in Photoshop and take a look at the “Channels” palette. An RGB image is composed of 3 black and white channels, one corresponding to each primary. As you may know, you can duplicate your red channel and replace your blue channel with it, for example… there is nothing inherently “red” or “blue” about each one. Instead, each one is like a black and white photo shot with a colored filter, so they have differing levels of contrast. Since CMOS and CCD sensors use about twice as many green receptors as any other (because of the way that our eyes see) the green channel usually has the most detail information, but the lowest contrast. Again, those of you who do a lot of isolating and masking in Photoshop know that green is the channel least likely to be used to create a new mask.

The 7D does use the color data to assist in AF; it uses the high contrast Red and Blue channels (its metering sensor uses two layers, an RG and a BG). The Nikon uses all three channels, ie, the full RGB spectrum, but keep in mind that because the green channel is typically low contrast, it’s not usually going to be any more useful than the composite RGB brightness data that our cameras have always used; I take the fact that it claims to be RGB as more of a gimmick than an actual engineering feat. So, on the basis of color data, there will be (extremely) few circumstances in practical use when the added color channel will be helpful in pulling focus… if any.

On the other hand, the Canon 7D uses 19 cross-type sensors (rather than just horizontal). Nikon clearly understands the importance of cross-types; they gave the D300s 15 of them in its 51 point array. I’ve been shooting with this camera exclusively for the past two months, and the AF is wonderful. So why not give them to the D7000? The obvious reason is that they’re expensive, and that the D7000′s AF system is intended to be slightly scaled down (fewer AF points, fewer cross type sensors) from the much more expensive D300s (RGB aside). So, there is no reason to think that the D7000′s RGB system will produce better results than Canon’s color assisted AF, but there is a very serious reason to believe that the 7D’s 19 cross-type sensors will out-perform the D7000′s 9. ]

The dual processors of the Canon 7D also mean that it should perform faster in general. It can shoot faster bursts of photos (8 per second vs. the 6 of the Nikon D7000). The D7000 does allow bursts for a slightly longer duration (100 vs. 94 jpgs), which makes sense: since it’s taking fewer photos per second, it doesn’t have to write the data as fast, and the buffer will have more time to clear. Nikon, however, is suspiciously vague about the resolution and format of those photos. In this matter, I’m keeping in mind that the Nikon D300s advertises being able to shoot 8 frames per second, but it can only shoot 2.5 in RAW mode (unlike the 7D, which shoots 8 fps in RAW or jpg).

Video

For those of you who are serious about making production-quality movies, I can highly recommend B&H’s HDSLR guide. It covers all of the extras that are really important for slick results: audio, matte boxes, stabilizers, rails, etc. Even if you’re not in the market, it’s worth looking… lots of cool toys!

The 7D can also process video faster, allowing it to shoot 60 frame-per-second slow-motion HD video (at 720p). Perhaps more importantly, the D7000 can only shoot 1080p video at 24 fps (not 25 or 30), which is a major limitation. Although some film makers prefer working with 24 fps because of its similarity to the movie film frame rate, 30 fps (30p/60i) is the standard broadcast frame rate, and common video editing frame rate. If you intend to edit video footage together from the D7000 with camcorder video, you’ll have your work cut out for you.

One advantage of the Nikon D7000, however, is the sensitivity of its focusing sensors. According to the specs, the Nikon can focus in a half (0.5) EV lower light than the Canon, which can always come in handy. This is, of course, assuming that in the available light there is sufficient contrast, etc, for the sensors to pull focus. The D7000 also uses SD cards, which some may find to be an advantage, and it holds two of them, allowing physical separation of jpgs and RAW files. I think this is a really cool idea, but I’m not really sure how useful it will be in practice… I can’t think of a good practical application for the way I work.

There are, of course, countless other differences between the two cameras… but many of them are hard to quantify, and many of them are not used by many photographers. I’m willing to accept that there may be particular features found in the D7000 that will make it the best choice for a particular photographer, but when it comes down it to the raw figures, the Canon 7D appears to be the clear winner. Perhaps not by a ton, but certainly $300 worth.

237 Comments

Hello Mathew, I read your article and I am hoping you will provide an indepth solution to me as well. You keep emphasisnig the fact that the choice of the camere depends on your needs. So I am going to be specific with my requirements so you can help me choose. I have been reading different articles but I never came across the problem I seem to face with my d5000. I am a novice and ended up buying d5000 in 2010 as my first dslr having no idea what to choose. I was too excited getting my slr and went on a clicking spree as I had a willing subject which was my brand new baby. I loved photographing her every minute and in 3 mons ended up having severe tendinitis as wierd as it may sound. Here’s the problem, d5000 takes ages to focus. It keeps hunting constantly for a focal point again and again pinching my tendon every single time it doesn’t come to focus. The subject being a baby, its almost impossible to catch the shot I want, forcing me to click more than necessary. The pain from tendinitis is so excruciating that if I click some 30-40 pics a day, I would have to rest my hand for a week. I thought this was how all SLR’s are until 6 months ago when I shot some 200 pictures from T1i at my Brothers In Law wedding. It was focusing at lightning speed and my arm was at total ease even after shooting 100-200 pics. Not a single day went by without regretting not buying cannon since that day. And now I have to live with tendinitis for the rest of my life, thanx to my d5000. I elaborated my problem so you can tell me if its my camera’s fault or my lens or my own settings? If its my camera, I am ready to move on.

Cameras shortlisted : Cannon 60d/70d or 7d and Nikon d90 or d7000/d71000 (although I hate Nikon, had to shortlist coz of the reviews) OR you could totally suggest a new one based on my needs.

Here’s what I am looking for: 1. Something really easy for my arm. Has to come to focus instatntly and light weight. 2. Love to take portraits with shallow depth. (Again, I need you to advise if I can go with kit lens or 50 mm prime lens, Whichever is easy on my arm) 3. HD videos with blurred background. 4. Running toddler. 5. Low light pictures 6. Something that screams professional when you look at the image.

I am a total amateur and usually click images using scene mode but I cannot emphasize how much I love blurred backgrounds bringing the subject to sharp focus. I am not a technical person, so I dont understand cross points and a lot of other jargon. I always loved photography and bought my first dslr hoping to hone my skills but took a backseat instead. But after shooting with t1i and realising that not all cameras are painful after all, my passion for photography is back again. Since my first camera sank $1000 down the drain, I want this to be a wise investment so I can grow into it and not replace it with anything else later.

I’m afraid that my advice isn’t going to be very satisfying this time. When it comes to ergonomics, there’s no substitute for holding a camera in your hand and testing it. Sometimes a large grip will cause less stress, sometimes a small one will… sometimes a lighter camera is more comfortable, sometimes a heavier one.

That said, if a Canon T1i was comfortable for you, the Canon T series has changed very little since its release. The T5i would be a good place to start testing, and the Canon 70D would be a good follow-up. The 70D is the better camera, but it’s larger. Both focus quickly (with a good lens), shoot HD video (but the 70D has better, much faster autofocus for video), they’re pretty good in low light.

No matter what camera you own, even if it’s an $6500 Canon EOS 1D X, no camera is going to take pictures that look professional all the time unless you know what you’re doing… and probably not even then. Taking professional-looking photos requires a lot more than an expensive camera. However, ANY DSLR is going to be capable of taking professional looking photos… so that will depend on you and how much time and learning you’re willing to put into it.

When it comes to professional image quality, nothing is more important than the lens that you choose, and that depends heavily on what you want to shoot and what compromises you’re willing to make. Using a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens will be fast, light, give you shallow depth of field, be excellent in low light, but they’re not flexible in terms of zoom range. You have to get used to shooting at 50mm only… and a lot of people have a hard time with that.

My advise would be to buy a T5i body or 70D kit with the new 18-135mm STM lens, and add on the 50mm f/1.8 lens for an extra $100. Again, you’ll need to test the bodies with that lens to make sure it’s comfortable for you.

Firstly, I agree with you a 100% that I have to personally test different cameras to find out which one works for my hand. I did go to Best buy with the same idea to try and click their display models but they dont have any. If I buy and return, there would be a restocking fees. Do you have any suggestions how I can try a bunch of cameras ruling out friends as an option.

secondly, assuming Nikon D90 and D7000 work for me. Can I use my current D5000 18mm-55mm lens and 55mm-200mm lens on either of the cameras depending on what I buy, of course. (This is just to save some money since I have the lenses already) OR Is it the lens that is causing me the pain in the first place?

Lastly, I admit its the photographer and not the camera that can make it look professional. I was just too excited to get started again. I loved watching your awesome tutorials that had loads of information. You just made me subscribe.

When it comes to trying out new cameras, I suppose it all depends on where you are. My local Best Buy and even WalMart has some, but there are 3 or 4 camera shops around Seattle that have much better selections and I can try whatever I want. Amazon.com generally doesn’t have re-stocking fees. If you have a local photography/camera club, you might try going for a meeting and seeing what people have.

Any lens that will work on a D5000 will also work on any other Nikon DSLR. It’s hard to say whether they’re part of the problem you experienced, but it seems like they might be a factor, either with speed or ergonomics. Again, testing is the only way to know for sure.

Hello matthew, I am Goutham Neelambaran from India about me I am very much interested in photography and shooting videos. Today (3/31/2013) morning I happen to read a comparion between Canon 7D and Nikon D7000 in your website (light and matter) I read all your replies for the members, all your replies were really informative especially like a beginner like me it was really helpful first thank you for that.

Now, coming to the point. I have been reading reviews and watching some comparison online in youtube for long time now and able to narrow down to some DSLR Models that are quiet familiar in market for quiet a while, they are,

1.Canon 7D 2.Canon 60D 3.Nikon D7000

Lens : Sorry being a beginner I really can’t decide which lens to get, your guidance is needed.

More of wildlife, travelling, abstract and fast action photography are my field of interets

Interest: I am interested in sports, wildlife, abstract and action. Not only these I want to explore all the edges of the photography. I would also like to take some low-light photography too.

Level : Upgrading from a point and shoot to a DSLR Family.

Job type : I have finished my Bachelors of Engineering the last April 2011 and have been working for one year and now applied for universities abroad and waiting for admit.

Budget : Not a problem, affordable for all the models.

Question : I heard people say that Nikon D7000 is best for low-light photography and Canon 7D isn’t that good when compared to Nikon D7000. Is that true or these nikon fan boys exaggerating it.

I fully trust you, I want you to decide and tell me which one is best for my kind of photography since you have a good knowledge about it. I have been trying to decide among these models. But can’t do it, some say Nikon D7000 is great and some say no, Canon 7D is great and a another one says why do you have to buy such a expensive one go with the Canon 60D. Really confused and fed-up with it. So, I am leaving it solely to you. Consider me as your younger brother and suggest me ONE CORRECT MODELS THAT I CAN BUY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT and also the lens for above listed type of photography.

I know that Nikon D7000 seems really good in low-light situations, but I am planning to upgrade after 2 to 3 years of using either of these models. In canon, I can go for Canon 5D mark iii or something that might come up. In Nikon, I dont see a DSLR that I want to upgrade (No much of knowledge about Pro Nikon DSLRs). I do know that after choosing a brand (Canon, Nikon) it is difficult to switch to another one though it seems possible I dont want to do it. So, Canon 7D, Canon 60D and in Nikon its D7000.. Just give me one model that I will best suit my needs and will stay happy about it.

I read in a review that Canon 7D ISO performance in ISO 6400 or higher seems really bad and no where near a pro-kind. I am pretty shocked after reading that sentence wanted to clarify with you.

PS : Myself a Learner, but very much interested to learn photography to core. And another things you need to know, If I get this camera I wont be upgrading it for another 2 to 3 years, provided there is an exceptionally fantastic model that is being introduced to market by either of them (Canon or Nikon).

Just so we’re clear… my question was whether the Nikon D7100 is in the list, not just the D7000.

That said, I’m afraid that there’s no simple answer to this question. Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses, so I can’t tell you which one to buy.

My general advice is to buy the least expensive camera that will suit your needs, and then buy the best lenses that you can afford.

The Canon 7D is the best camera of the bunch for sports and action, and action-wildlife. The D7100/7000 are great all-around, and a little better in low light. The D7000 is good for an APS-C camera in low light, but is still very feeble compared to a full frame like the 5D Mark III. That is, the D7000 at ISO3200 is better than the Canon 7D, but both of them are ugly at that ISO, whereas I have no problem shooting at ISO3200 or 6400 with a 5D.

When I shoot with any APS-C camera (Canon or Nikon), I don’t go above ISO1600, and I only rarely go that high. With enough noise-processing, they’re usable at ISO3200, but you lose a good amount of detail.

I’d go for the 7D over the D7000, but it really comes down to a matter of what your needs are, and you’re the only one who knows that :) Good luck!

Really helpful information. What about Canon 60D?? If I choose Canon 60D with 18-55mm lens with a telephoto zoom 70-300mm IS USM lens.. Will that be a good option or shal I go with Canon 7D with basic kit 18-135mm lens.

For anyone on the fence about buying a D7000 in 2014 because of its age, I’ve been using a lightly used model I just purchased for portrait shoots lately, and I love the ability to record my RAW files to Card 1 and a [basic, small] JPEG to Slot 2 simultaneously. I’ve been offering clients a free card with the day’s images on it right there, on the spot as soon as I click the last frame of the shoot. They love the ability to instantly have decent viewable files to take home with them, but since they are much lower quality and resolution, I still can profit off of the files I go back and retouch. Overall, it’s a great camera and it’s loaded up with all the features any highly advanced amateur would need, and it goes head to head with the 7D in terms of image quality, AF, noise performance and build any day.

Hi, I have the same dilemma – 7D or D7000… It’s going to be my first DSLR, as my last “real” camera was a Praktica from stone age, and I abandoned it years ago for compacts.

A few months ago my dad got Canon 5D MII, and he loves it. He is by no means a professional, but he is developing his skill set, and wanted me to get my passion for photography back, by buying me a SLR, too. His first suggestion on T3i (or Canon 600D) turned into T4i (650D), and them 60D, but after looking at them in person, our interest shifted into comparable Nikons – D5200 and D7000. After deciding that the more advanced is the way to go, I found a used Canon 7D, and we’re back at square one – I’m stuck and unable to make a decision…

I guess I am looking for a justification to just go ahead with 7D – even much so since my dad casually mentioned, that I could always get his lenses after he retires them. We don’t live close to each other, so unfortunately borrowing and swapping is not an option, so I am not that stuck with the Canon decision.

I have to admit I like the idea of slightly newer camera, one with 2 memory cards, and so on, but I would like to get the most professional camera I can, so in two or three months I don’t regret the choice, and wish I got with something “more”.

Also – why is the 50ml the best start-up lens? Dad is recommending the 28-135mm or 18-135mm, just to have a range, and be able to set is to ~90mm for portraits (oh, the grand kids), but everyone seems to be dismissing the kit lenses as inferior to everything.

If you needed the decision to be a little bit harder, Canon is expected to release 3 new SLRs this year, possibly including replacements for the 7D and 60D.

My general advice is always this: buy the least expensive camera that will suit your needs, and buy the best lenses that you can afford.

When it comes down to it, virtually any of the cameras that you mention have image quality sufficient for professional use; I remember that in about 2008, a very well known (nationally) wedding photographer was shooting with a Canon 40D and doing very well… and all of these cameras are better than a 40D. So, unless there is some feature that you specifically want in one of these cameras (high ISO performance, frame rate, etc), there’s really not much reason to choose one over another… which is why it’s such a hard decision.

I’d go with a Nikon D5200 or Canon 60D; they’re both excellent cameras and not too expensive… they’ll leave money for better lenses. At this point, I’d probably lean a little more towards the Nikon, unless you’re really interested in swapping lenses with your dad.

And lenses are really the important part… they’ll make all the difference in your photos. A 50mm lens is a great place to start because of the fact that they’re great in low light, they’re nice portrait lenses, and they’re all very sharp, give you nice shallow depth of field when you want it, all while being very inexpensive.

On a camera with an APS-C sensor, a 28-135mm lens is very disappointing at the wide end of the zoom range. If you’re getting a lens for convenience and versatility, it just doesn’t have the wide end to fill that niche (28mm on APS-C is equivalent to about 45mm, which is not really wide angle at all). An 18-135 is much better, but you don’t want the Canon kit version of it… it’s an optically inferior lens. The new 18-135mm STM lens is much much better, though it is a little expensive. Nikon had a really nice non-VR 18-135 years ago, but it’s been discontinued. Don’t get the 18-200. It’s awful.

I am getting the camera as a birthday present, and have a budget of around $1000. Plus/minus, but I cannot stretch it too far…

Our decision process went from T3i to T4i, and maybe 60D (kit with the non-SMT 18-135). After assessing them in a store, dad thought they were a little “flimsy”, and added “sturdier” Nikons D5200 and D7000 to the equation. We decided something a little more professional was the way to go, and this morning I was sure I was getting the D7000 (in a kit with the 18-105 Vr Lens). I also read, just as you say, that D60 with the kit lens is just not good – makes picking the Nikon even easier…

In the mean time, I read some more (looks like it was a big mistake, lol), and found an opinion 60D should not be an option, as a used 7D is so close in price – I should get the 7D and the non-SMT lens, as 7D will handle it quite well. Dad got excited – he would have his full frame 5D, and I would have a class lower camera, we would be one happy, Canon family.

But I guess you are saying: forget about the non-SMT lens even with the 7D?

I’m tempted to wait a couple of weeks to see if the 7D MII really hits the market in late February. I guess 7D prices would drop, and I could possibly afford the camera, and the 18-135 STM lens. I did read your comment on 5D Mark II and Mark III regarding gaining a year of experience vs waiting a year to get a camera… not going to happen here – to excited about getting a DSLR.

On the other hand – Nikon D7000 looks good, too, and I’m even more confused. What do you think about this one with Nikon 18-105 3.5/5.6g Af-s Dx Ed Vr?

Even though my dad loves his Canon, he pushes me towards the Nikon D7000. I’m not resisting, I’m just trying to make a smart choice with the budget I’m given, and have no idea what I’m doing. I will probably not use all the functions of the camera in the near future (learning tech stuff and chasing two toddler boys at the same time is not that easy), and I feel the 7D may be an overkill, but… it’s tempting. With toddlers a camera for capturing sport action seems like a good choice, too.

The 7D and D7000 are both great choices; I think that the 7D is a better camera overall (as you’ve undoubtedly read above), but the fact that you mention video… well, I’d now lean towards the Nikon D7000. It will autofocus continuously while shooting video. It also has slightly better high ISO performance, though at a slightly lower resolution, than the 7D.

The Nikkor 18-105 is a pretty decent lens. The center is very sharp throughout the zoom range, and the borders aren’t too bad… just a little softer. It won’t give you the low-light performance of a 50mm, of course… and the D5200 won’t give you autofocus with older Nikon lenses like the 50mm f/1.8D (or other lenses that require a motor in the camera body), but the D7000 will. [All Canon EOS lenses will focus on all Canon EOS cameras]

I think I’ll go with 7D and 50mm 1,8 lens. This will keep me under budget, leaving some funds to get filters, extra battery, and so on. I will have a few months to get used to the camera, and then get my hands on my dads lenses: Tamron SP 24-70MM F/2.8 Di VC USD Tamron SP 90MM F/2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Tamron SP 70-300MM F/4-5.6 Di VC USD

I’ll see what I like and start saving on adding to my set. :)

I really enjoyed reading the article, and am grateful for the in-depth answer.

I’m glad to see that you’re going with the Canon 7D. I’ve owned & used most cameras released by from 2009 and so far my favorite are 60D because convenient flip out screen and 7D’s pro features and focusing system.

May I make a suggestion if you haven’t ordered it yet, get the 50mm 1.4. It’s fast USM focusing will compliment your 7D accuracy. You won’t regret it.

Hi Matthew, Ok so I don’t know if my other comment went through since my computer froze up but this is kinda what I said..

I torn between these 2 cameras. I’m just starting out again into pursuing my love of photography and I wanting to find the best camera to invest into. This is going to be my 1st DSLR camera and even though its going to be a big learning curve but that’s what I want so I can grow into this camera. I know that the main component and biggest factor in getting the best quality picture is the lenses.

Question 1- Which company between Canon and NIkon who makes the best quality lenses and most different range lenses? This will be my main deciding factor in which camera I purchase. Question 2- I’m debating between getting a bundle pack for either these 2 cameras or just getting the base and buying two lenses to start out with (the 50mm f/1.8 and then a good zoom lense, which I would need your opinion in too), which idea do you think is most practical and smarter idea? I need a lense thats good for speed/action since I will be using it to photograph my son and his many sporting events but also that I can use for everyday use.

Whether Canon or Nikon has better or more lenses is a tricky question, and more complicated than it might seem at first.

Both companies make excellent lenses, but have different strengths. Canon’s designs for super-telephoto lenses are incredible, but Nikon has some truly excellent wide-angle lenses…. and both lineups have some lenses that are dogs. It’s also hard to judge a company by their best lenses, since so few people will be able to afford the $10,000+ super-telephotos, for example. There are also factors to consider beyond optics: auto-focus speed, durability, weather-sealing, etc. Whether I tell you that Nikon or Canon is ultimately better, a fan of the other line will reply and say… “Ah-ha! But what about lens X? That company doesn’t have a lens that’s as good this!”

So, looking for a definitive answer at the company level probably isn’t helpful. What’s going to be more helpful is to choose a few lenses that you would use and that you can see yourself actually being able to purchase in the future, and comparing those… keeping in mind that, optically, the differences between a good lens from Nikon and a good lens from Canon may be visible in the lab, but probably won’t be visible in real life… lenses today are really excellent.

You’re right, though, that the lens you use to get a picture is extremely important… but a big part of that is lens choice, not necessarily lens brand. You’ll get a very different picture with an 85mm f/1.4 lens than you will with a 55mm f/5.6, even if they’re both nice lenses.

For the way I work, I carry two camera bodies… one with a 24-70 f/2.8 (or equivalent) and one with a 70-200 f/2.8, and that allows me to cover a huge range of subjects with top-notch image quality. I think that Canon’s lenses are the best in the world for these ranges. Other photographers, though (Alfred Lopez, a contributor here on the site, for example) prefer to use only a few prime lenses: an 85mm, a 50mm, a 35mm, all with large apertures. There’s no best setup overall… just the best one for a particular photographer.

In general, I avoid the kit lenses, though optically they’re usually ok. Ever since I bought my first camera in 1992, I always buy the body + a 50mm f/1.8 lens, and then take it from there… though at this point, I have a collection of Canon and Nikon lenses, so I haven’t had to purchase another lens with a body for a while, I guess. Regardless, it’s hard to go wrong with a 50mm, and then for sports, you’ll want a good quality, fast-focusing telephoto zoom lens. I think that a 70-200 f/2.8 is ideal, and there are several on the market that are in the not-too-outrageous price range. If your kids play outdoor sports and have games during the day, then a 70-300mm might work well, too.

Sorry I can’t give you anything more definitive than that :) If you do have more questions on the specifics, though, just let me know.

Thanks Matthew for trying to answer all those very complicated questions. I know these 2 companies all have their pros and cons and its all preference to the individual. So then I guess the only question I have then is since I’m just starting my collection, which camera out of the D7000 and D7 would you recommend from you professional opinion?

Essentially, it’s for the reasons that I list in the article: the 7D is faster and better built, the AF system has cross-type points where they’re useful (at all of the peripheral focusing points, not just in the center), the D7000’s sensor is a little better, but not enough to matter in practice, it has the thumb-wheel exposure compensation dial (which is important to me), and I prefer Canon lenses for the types of work I most commonly do. But, as I say, some of that is personal preference… other factors may be more important to you.

If you can get a good deal on a 7D or d7000, I think it’s a great time to buy unless you frequently shoot in situations that are pressing the boundaries of a camera’s hardware abilities, like shooting in low light without flash. I do it a fair amount, but use large aperture lenses and it’s not a big deal keeping my ISO at 1600 or below, so the capabilities of these cameras are great. In general, the technical “image quality” is NOT what makes a picture great, anyway. If you do work in tricky situations a lot, though, then it might be worth waiting 6 months.

It depends on the zoom range that you’re interested in. The more zoom that’s included in a single lens, the worse the overall image quality will be. Personally, I’m a fan of the new 18-135mm STM lens, which has great image quality and covers the wide-angle to moderately long telephoto range covered, and the auto focus is nice and fast for shooting action. It is, however, not an f/2.8 lens, so it’s not great for getting fast shutter speeds in lower light levels.

If you’re looking for an f/2.8, there aren’t too many options: the 17-55 and the 70-200 f/2.8 (the Tamron is a good deal) lenses are both outstanding, but expensive and they don’t cover wide angle to telephoto.

Stephanie, maybe it sounds ridiculous, but you also should consider your hand-size. I had both cameras in my hands and I have to say, the 7D is a camera for men, while the D7000 is a camera rather for women. Size is not just a little but a huge difference, considering average hand sizes of women and men. You should go into a store to get a feeling. I am going for the 7D now, cause I already have lots of equipment for canon already owning a 10D. But starting from Zero I would go for a D7000 (500 Euro difference in Germany). From the money you would save and you would have to pay for a canon objective, you could get a Nikkor 50 1,4, a Tamron 70-300 4-5,6 SP and a Sigma 18-50 2,8 EX as a very good starting point

Unwichtich, Thanks so much for you input and I actually did get the D7000 for that exact reason! I have very tiny hands (size 4.5 ring size lol) so when I went to go try out the cameras the 7D was way to big for me, I could barely grip the the camera :/ but thank you so much for your advice! And the lenses you suggested I had a question, are Tameron and Sigma that well made?? Because I was debating on getting them since they are 3rd party and I just didn’t know if they were that good. What makes them worth getting besides the price difference? I was reading reviews and kept getting mixed messages, some people liked them and some just hate them! Would love to get your opinion!

The D7000 sounds like a good choice, but a big part of the answer will depend on your budget.

For wildlife, you’ll want at least a 200mm lens. For low light, you’ll need a large aperture, like an f/2.8. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 II VR is excellent (or a non-VR version is available), and I’d also recommend the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC USD, which is much less expensive (still not cheap) and also excellent. If that price is still too high, the older Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (no VR) is still optically a great lens at about half the price, but the focus is slightly slower and there’s no VR, so you’d want to make sure you’re using a monopod or tripod.

Needless to say, a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 lens would be even better, but you’d really have to be a professional to be able to manage the pricetag ($9000 or so). I’ve used the 70-200 for wildlife quite a bit, and I’ve been happy with the results.

It is tempting to throw aside the low-light requirement and buy something with more reach, but I find that the best wildlife photos that I take are around sunrise and sunset, and there’s rarely as much light as I’d like… the extra light coming through the lens is always a big help.

If you’re willing to give up the light, though, you might consider the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. It’s less than $600, has pretty good optics, and will give you some extra reach. The downside is that the f/5.6 aperture lets in only 1/4 of the light that an f/2.8 lens would.

Hi Matthew, Its really gr8 post. I love wildlife and macro photography. Currently I am using Nikon D60 with Sigma 150-500 and Tamron 90mm macro. I am not professional photographer but I think I have to upgrade my camera but I am little bit confuse. Could you please suggest me whether I should shift from Nikon to Canon – Canon 7D with canon 100-400 or upgrade my body to Nikon D7000. Because I think only good body is not enough it also depends on good lens and lens having focal length up to 400mm or 500mm in Nikon is very costly than Canon. Also Canon 7D has 8fps and no Nikon cam has more than 6fps except prof. Nikon DSLR which I think may affect in bird photography. What do u think? Is it worthwhile to shift to Canon?

I do a fair amount of wildlife photography myself (I’ve done much of the photography for Myakka River State Park , for example), though it isn’t really my main focus. Most of the wildlife photographers I know shoot Canon (because of their top-notch telephoto lenses), but to be honest, there are plenty of people who use both systems very successfully. As a wildlife shooter, I’d lean towards the 7D rather than the D7000, but there’s no reason that you should feel like you have to.

I always say that you should buy the least expensive body that will fulfill your needs, and buy the best lenses you can afford. I agree that Canon’s telephoto options are great: Canon’s 400mm f/5.6L is a awesome if you don’t have a professional-level budget: tack sharp, fast focusing, and only $1200.

That said, switching from one brand to another ends up costing a lot of money, and I wouldn’t recommend it unless you know that you’ll be solving a specific problem by doing so. At this level, most camera choice is going to boil down to personal preference… there are some advantages in Nikon and some in Canon, and it’s really a matter of what you think is more important. So, you should ask yourself :

What could a camera do that will improve my photography?

Could I achieve the same thing by being a better photographer? (ie, improving your timing, technique, exposure, etc)

If there is something that I need the camera to do, is one camera brand significantly better at it?

In both of your links, there is a lens with the camera… an 18-105mm zoom. It’s not a great lens for low light, BUT at the lower price ($999), you might as well get it for when you’re taking pictures in other circumstances. Don’t buy the one with the camera bag and memory card… that’s an outrageous markup for those extras.

So, once you have the D7000, you can choose the lens that best fits what the other lens can’t handle. The 18-105 will be just fine for family shots outdoors. It won’t be great for softball, but it will be pretty good for nature in general.

It will be pretty bad for low-light action, and it won’t be great for anything that’s really far away (wildlife, sports). If you had a big budget, I’d recommend a 70-200 f/2.8… but that’s a minimum of $1200.

Hi! Quick question. I am not a pro. photo. by any means. That’s for sure. I have girls in Dance and softball and other sports. I want a nice camera and lens that works excellent in low light auditoriums and out on the outdoor fields. I though I wanted the Nikon D7000 DSLR but after taking to a girlfriend of mine that is a pro. she doesn’t think that the “package deal” that Best Buy has as a bundle for the D7000. is worth it. I started researching the 7D which is getting out of my price range, but would rather boot the little bit of extra cash than to waste money on something I am going to regret. Could you please let me know your thought? Again, lowlight auditoriums, family photo’s in and outdoor, outdoor softball, nature are what my camera (which ever camera and lens you think best for me) would be used for. I don’t want blur when taking action, sports photos. Thanks!!

The 7D and the D7000 are both great cameras; the D7000 has slightly better image quality in low light, and although it’s not the camera I’d recommend for everyone, it sounds like it would be the best choice for you. I agree with your friend, though: a package deal is not the way to go. Kit lenses are really NOT ideal for low light action.

First of all, if you’re taking pictures of action (like dancing), keep in mind that image-stabilization (IS on Canon lenses, VR on Nikon lenses) doesn’t do anything to keep the action from getting blurred; it’s more like using a tripod… it will only reduce blur from camera movement. To stop motion blur in your subject, you have to either (1) let in more light through your lens with a large aperture or (2) use a high ISO setting (or both, I suppose).

Using high ISO on any camera is going to give you some digital noise. It’s not as bad when you’re using a full-frame sensor (like the Canon 6D or the Nikon D600, or better… both of which cost over $2000), but the D7000 and 7D are about the same, but the D7000 is a little less noisy (you might be able to get the same amount of noise at ISO2400 as you would at ISO1600 on the Canon), but both will be noisy.

For image quality, the better option is to use a large aperture lens. Most kit lenses will have a maximum aperture range from 3.5 – 5.6 or so. If you buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, however, it will let in 16 TIMES as much light as that kit lens at f/5.6 .

The problem with large aperture lenses is that they’re large, heavy, and EXPENSIVE (although 50mm lenses are pretty inexpensive, especially the f/1.8). There are some prime lenses (ie, non-zoom) that let in lots of light… f/1.4 or f/2, and they’re not always horribly expensive. With zoom lenses, the best you’ll get is f/2.8, (still 4x more light than that f/5.6 lens), but they’re pretty expensive.

So, that’s all just to say… you’re going to have to sacrifice somewhere: price, convenience, or quality.

A prime lens like a 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f1.4 or an 85mm f/1.8 isn’t too expensive, but there’s no zoom… so it’s not very convenient (but great for portraits) but great quality. (Less expensive models may also available from 3rd parties, like Sigma or Tamron)

Finally, a lens like the 55-200mm f/4-5.6 or 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR is going to be convenient (with a wide zoom range, wide angle to telephoto in the second case) and relatively inexpensive (particularly the former), but the low-light shooting will be pretty bad (and the optical quality might be pretty bad, too).

I know that’s a lot of information, so feel free to ask for clarification or if you think you can narrow it down a bit :)

Thank you for the very quick response. I am going to paste you the two Best Buy Black Friday ads. I was going to do the Bundle but if you think its not that great, I am also going to paste what they are asking for just the camera. If you think the lens that is added into the bundle will not be nice for what I stated earlier in the last memo for what I will be using it for, could you suggest what you think would be best for me. I just want to have my ducks all in a row before I go make this purchase. Again, not a pro and do not have 1,000.00 to spend on a lens. Thank You!!!

Great post, if we add another camera into the mix the Nikon D300s with its 51 point AF system with 15 cross type sensors would you choose the Canon 7d or the Nikon D300s? I am looking to purchase either for my birthday in July. Would you also expect a replacement for either camera in 2011?

I actually wrote a similar comparison between the 7D and D300s, here. Again, I think that the 7D comes out on top, but not by an overwhelming margin. The cameras are all very impressive. I wouldn’t be surprised if the D300s or the 7D saw a replacement (or update, at least) this year. They’re both a couple of years old, which puts them in line to be replaced, though Nikon may be waiting until the buzz over the D7000 dies down a little. The D300 was released less than 2 years after the D200, and the D300s was announced a little less than two years after that (July 2009). I’d say that puts the announcement of the D300x or D400 any day now, but who knows, especially with the Tsunami.

Canon has announced the EOS 10D – 60D in August or February, usually 12 or 18 months in between models. The 7D was released in November 2009, but of course, is not part of the x0D series, so there’s no precedent on which to base predictions.

Okay, let me ask another. I am looking at the Canon 7D and the NIkon D7000. I was attracted to the 7D because I’d like to do large landscape prints for our retirement home in a few years. I would ideally want a full frame, but I’m a teacher and the 7D is pushing it. I figured that the 18 MP would give me more crop room, and still allow a larger print than the 16 MP of the Nikon. However, after reading through a lot of data at http://www.dxomark.com/index.php I’m not so sure. I guess what I am questioning is the fact that the Nikon has less pixels, but it has a larger sensor. Whereas, the Canon has more pixels crammed into a smaller sensor. I do realize that I’ll be pushing the print size beyond “photographic quality,” but I think that taking in the viewing range of the larger prints it won’t hurt that much. However, I do want the best image quality for that size print that I can get. Which do you feel would provide that?

In both cases, the quality of the photo is going to be limited by the lens and shooting technique more than the sensor (or anything else). The difference between 16 and 18 megapixels isn’t really going to be very significant. Tests like DxO may say that one sensor is better than another, but the fact is that you can take really amazing photos with any of these cameras… and if someone is having trouble getting good image quality, it’s more likely to be a problem with the photographer than the camera.

With the highest resolution lenses, the Canon might have a slight edge, particularly at low ISO. The noise on the D7000 is a little lower above 1600, but in both cases, the image quality isn’t that great … so it should be avoided if possible.

If you’re really interested in printing large, keep in mind that it’s a relatively simple matter to stitch together 2 or 3 (or many more) photos into a large image, if you expose with that in mind. That way, you can get a 50+ megapixel image, which will actually look significantly better than a 16 or 18 one.

Alternately, you might look at the Sony A850. It’s a 24 megapixel, full frame body (same sensor as used in the D3x, and it costs under $2000 (just a hair, though). Or, sometime within the next year or so the 5D Mark III will probably be released, so the Mark II prices will drop, and they’ll be widely available used.

That said, I think that you’d be very happy with a 7D or D7000; I’d buy according to the lenses that you want to invest in later, the features that are most important to you, and whether the controls are comfortable and intuitive for you.

Thank you for your posts. I want to upgrade my old Nikon D50 but which one the D7000 or the 7D. Primarily I use a camera for taking photographs of stud bulls and cattle but I am a keen photographer as well. I will purchase a 18 – 200mm lens as this is the most useful. Too long and I miss shots that are closer and too short I cant get close enough sometimes. I find with my dear old camera that it often has trouble focusing on the shiny coats of the bulls that are usually a red-orange colour but not very dark like some cattle. Not being a highly technical person I don’t really understand about the deference between the focus points/ cross points of the two cameras so wonder which one would be best for my needs?. It is good to have the whole animal in focus not just his head so I do use the multiple focus point capability of my old camera. Its also good to use aperture to blur the background if possible in usually very bright light. Most shots are taken side on for conformation but 3/4 are useful too. I do need something fast because the flick of an ear is the difference between a usable pic and one that is not and I might only get one chance. I do have a couple of Nikon lenses 18-55 & 70 – 300 but use mostly the 18 – 55 once the bulls accept me and the 70 – 300 when they don’t or I want dramatic 3/4 shots.(I have a 28 – 200 Tamron but it rarely focuses sharp enough) I think I would hardly take the 18 – 200 off so maybe the other lenses will not be so important anyway and they are so old that they don’t have any vibration reduction. (not even sure if they are f mounts – how do you tell?) i would also use the video for short 10 – 20 sec grabs of bulls walking – I do that now with an camcorder on a tripod – it focuses by itself and is simple.

I notice that you are a Canon fan anyway and the only people with similar cameras that I know tend to say that they just like using a Canon and that both cameras would be good. I’m a little worried about the weight but expect that you would get used to it. I do need something very tough because it will bump around in the back of a motor bike or seat of a ute and be exposed to heaps of dust. I have lost my Nikon off the back of a bike when I hit a bump (in a padded case) and it was fine. Love to here from you.

Unfortunately, no matter what camera you use, focusing on the coat of a bull will be difficult because a focusing point needs contrast to focus (so solid colors are hard to focus on, but anything with lines is a lot easier). The average (non-cross type) focusing point can focus on vertical lines, but has trouble with horizontal (or no lines at all, of course). Cross-type points can focus on horizontal OR vertical lines with relative ease. So, anything like the head of the animal, which has details (and therefore outlines) to focus on is relatively easy for a camera to focus on; and honestly, either of these cameras would easily be up to that challenge. If you try to focus directly on the side, you may do fine if there’s some visible detail (either pattern in the hide or visible ribs, etc), and if you’re taking a shot of the whole animal, you should be able to focus on the line between the back of the animal and the background. Again, though, both of these cameras have a sufficient number of cross-type points that you should get about the same performance with either camera…. so I wouldn’t worry to much about that.

When it comes to video features, they should also both suit your needs equally well. For Americans, the Canon is a little better for NTSC standard 30fps video at 1080p Full HD, but I’m assuming that you’re Australian, so I’m not even sure if NTSC standards would be a going issue; either way… you’ll be able to shoot at 24fps, which is the motion picture standard, so if you want to put a video on a BluRay disc, for example, to give to a potential buyer… you can do that with either camera. I’ve tried using the full-time AF on the Nikon, and it’s disappointingly slow… so you’ll probably mostly be using manual focus for video in either case. The Canon requires you to hold down the button half way for it to focus, the Nikon will try to pull focus all the time if you want it to, but it doesn’t do a great job. You may find that, unless you want really high quality HD video, you might find it easier to continue using a video camera.

As for lenses… if your old lenses fit onto your D50, they’ll fit onto a D7000… no problem there.

In the end, they’re both going to be quite a bit better than your D50, and I’m sure that you’d be really happy with either one. The Canon is slightly faster (more frames per second, but it’s probably not a practical difference for your needs) and is a little more heavy-duty, but again, they’re both well built. Since you already have Nikon equipment, I’d probably opt for the D7000; it will be easier to get familiar with, and it will fit your current lenses.

I should tell you, though, that the Nikon 18-200 is the bane of my existence. It might not make a difference to you, but at wide angle, the borders of the image are horribly soft and smeary. Fair warning :)

Yes Australian. With the Nikon 18 – 200, is it just the border of the frame or the subject? Would the Canon equivilent be any better? I do like my 300 mm lens as it is handy at times so I probably will go for Nikon then.

It’s really just the borders; the center of the frame remains pretty sharp, and actually the borders are sharper if you stop down to f8 or so.The Canon lens also has optical problems… that’s the problem with trying to get such a huge zoom range into a single lens; there are always trade-offs. Still, it’s very convenient, and for many photos, it doesn’t matter if the borders are a bit soft.

Now I’ve discovered the new Nikon 28 -300mm lens so I’m really torn. Considering the dust factor of changing lens etc I think I might be better off with it. I’d still have the old 18 – 55 if I really need it. I did use an old Tamron 28 – 200 until I realised it just didn’t cut if for sharpness and mostly I didn’t lose shots for being too close.

Hey Catherine, I know you weren’t asking about other lenses and just wanted a response from Matthew, but it sounds like you’ve never tried out a fast telephoto lens. You should see if you can find someone to lend you one or try renting one for a day. A new Nikon 85mm 1.8 is under $500, and used 3rd party 70-200 2.8 lenses can often be found on eBay for $500-$600, which is significantly less than Nikon’s 18-200 or 28-300. The superzooms have VR, which can be handy in some situations, but the way you can blur out the backgrounds with a fast lens is such a huge plus I think you should at least try one out before you decide to purchase a superzoom. An added benefit of shooting with a fast lens is that even if the lens is not super sharp at the pixel level, the perceived sharpness is higher when the out of focus areas are blurry!

Thanks for the reply. I’m from the Philippines by the way and these 2 cameras here have the same price. Disregarding the video performance on both, since I would only use it to take photos, would you still recommend the 7D? I’ll use it mainly for portraits and a bit of landscape.

Yes, I’d definitely get the 7D. The only reason that I’d consider the Nikon is if a) there’s a particular Nikon lens or set of lenses that you like that are made by Nikon, or b) you do a lot of high-ISO work, because the D7000 may have a slight advantage there.

Hey Ron! What’s up buddy? You’re from the Philippines, so do I. lol I wanted to know how much is the current price of brand new 7D and D7000 in Manila? I’m over here in Dubai and I’m curious about the prices over there. I’d be buying one soon, just having a hard time choosing between the two though lol. Thanks

If you have opportunity, buy your camera in Hong Kong from a reliable shop. Suntek Camera is one. They could be up to US$500 or cheaper than in the Philippines whether it is Nikon or Canon. But be careful dealing with those Hong Kong salesman.

Hey matt, very nice discussion that you have here. Great comparison by the way. I have a question for you, if these 2 cameras were released on the same date with the same price, which would you pick for pure photography purposes? Why?

Actually, if the two cameras were the same price it would make the choice a lot easier, since I’m of the opinion that the 7D is the superior camera (faster, more cross-type focusing points, more video options, stronger body, higher resolution, etc. as stated above). The fact that the D7000 costs $300 less is actually what makes it such an attractive option.

Beyond that, I’d start looking at the camera systems as a whole; both Canon and Nikon have strengths and weaknesses in their lens lineups, and Nikon probably has a more sophisticated small-flash system. The important thing is to figure out what lenses you want and what features you need from the flash systems to get your work done, and then pick the system that covers your needs the best.

I just started noticing the prices on that package myself (a bit under $2200 seems typical). It’s hard to go wrong with the 7D, of course. The 15-85 is a good zoom range, but optical quality isn’t quite as good as I’d hope at the extremes considering the price. That said, I’d certainly take it instead of the 18-135. Where the 15-85 has a couple of optical flaws, they can generally be corrected by stopping down a bit, and the performance is generally quite strong.

For other alternatives, honestly I have not much knowledge about cannon lenses so probably you can help me out by giving some suggestions so long as its worth paying for.. Btw my apologies for a silly question here i.e how does one notice the optical flaw of the lens? I am actually in Malaysia so the price for the body and 15-85 IS USM is RM6000 after converson at 3.1 would be exactly US1935, give and take around US2000.considering diff. exchange rate.

Over here the price for Nikon d7000 is about the same as Cannon 7d so wouldn’t you agree its wise to go for the latter.

I see… that’s a pretty good price. Maybe I’ll have to go to Malaysia to buy my next camera :) Anyway… the optical flaws that I’m talking about are generally obvious when you enlarge and print your photo, or if you simply zoom in to the 100% level of the digital; this is particularly apparent with chromatic aberration and blurry borders. If you’re more serious about quantifying the optical flaws, there is software and testing systems… but of course, if you can’t see the problems with the naked eye, they really aren’t worth worrying about. With barrel and pincushion distortion, you don’t even need to zoom in… just look for items that should be straight (doors, building edges, etc) and see if they’re bowed outward or inwards.

But back to the point: the 15-85mm is certainly better than the 18-135 and 18-200 as far as optical quality is concerned (though not range) it’s also better than the 17-85 all around.

If you want to spend some money but get a very nice lens, the 17-55 f/2.8 is a better lens; it’s optically excellent and of course you get much much better low-light performance. On the other end of the spectrum, the 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS is quite cheap, but optically it is better all around than the 15-85 (which is to be expected, since it covers a shorter zoom range).

Hey Matthew, You’ve been a saint here for all the valuable infos and advice cos I have not come across anyone who is so patient and thorough and helpful. I will certainly take all your advice into consideration and work out something with the dealer here If you ever decide to pop by in Malaysia I’m more than willing to help you get around to those really good deal shops. You take care and cheers to you.

Just want to let you know that I’d just bought the Canon 7D with Canon 25-85 lens. It was quite difficult for me to decide, but I think althought I’m not covered for the longer range it will do for me. I also bought the Canon 430 EX II flash and am looking forward to receive it in the next week or so.

I will definately upload some images if I manage the camera and let you know if I’m happy with my choice. Thanks for your wonderful help, time, support and advice for the past nearly two months you really do a wonderful job in helping everyone out with you knowledge.

I’m glad to hear that you’ve decided on a camera :) There’s nothing more fun than getting a new camera. Except for getting an expensive new lens, maybe. I hope that you enjoy it!

I’m not quite clear about which lens you’re referring to, though. Perhaps one that I’m not familiar with.. or perhaps you’re converting the focal length for the crop factor? Either way, I’ll be looking forward to seeing some test shots :)

Mathew, I’m buying my first DSLR camera this holiday and I am convinced to buy the Canon 7D. I am picture taker, not a photographer just yet but I just finished my school so I’ll have plenty of time to get serious. Any suggestion for lens that I should invest to go along with Canon 7D? Should I get canon lenses or sigma? I see myself shooting structures, buildings, mountains, and of course my wife. My initial budget is no more than $2300. Please reply. Thanks.

If you buy the 7D body alone ($1599), that should give you a budget of about $700 for lenses. (I wouldn’t recommend buying it with the kit lens).

There are a couple of good options. Probably the least expensive that still gives you very high optical quality is to buy the Canon 18-55 IS ($187) and the Canon 55-250 IS ($206). They’re both inexpensive, and both great optically (whereas the kit lens, the 18-135 is optically mediocre). That would bring you in well under budget and might leave room for a good flash like the 430-EX, which can be used bounced or off-camera, which you will certainly want to do once you’ve learned about the light quality difference, if you haven’t already. Or of course, if there’s a more specialized lens that you’d want… like a low light 50mm f1.8 or a macro 60mm f2.8 (also a good portrait lens).

Come to think of it, if you were to buy these at B&H, with their current double rebates, you’d get at least one of those lenses practically for free. Take a look at their Canon rebate page, if you are inclined.

Sigma lenses are hit and miss when it comes to optical quality. Some of them are quite good, but many are not sharp across the entire frame. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend their fixed focal length lenses or certain lenses such as the 10-22mm, but with your budget, buying sigma lenses would probably sacrifice more image quality than it would be worth.

If you think that you could make due without the wide angle half of the spectrum for a while, another good option would be Canon’s 70-200 f4 (non-IS). It’s an optically superb lens and would fit into your budget (and with proper use of rebates, you might also work in the 18-55mm)… and there’s the added bonus with it of having a cool looking white canon lens :)

i think its stupid to buy something as nice as a 7d for your first dslr. your the type of person that will be shooting on auto and wasting all this camera has to offer. buy something more simple. an entry level dslr instead of something thats 2300$

Hi Matthew, Just want to tell you after many reviews etc I’ve decided to go for the Canon 7D. I thought of buying the 18-135mm Canon lens but I’m not sure if this is the best option. I was tempted to buy the Canon 70-200 F4L lens without IS as it is affordable for me, but it leaves me with a gap for the shorter distances up to 70mm. Can you perhaps suggest me what to do. Thanks in advance. Regards

Good to see you lurking around again :) Unfortunately, Canon’s 18-135mm isn’t the greatest lens… it’s not terrible, but it’s not great (Nikon’s, on the other hand, is quite good… though they may have discontinued it). However, the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS is much better (as you’d expect with a limited zoom range). Good even resolution throughout the range. If you were to pair that with Canon’s 55-250 IS, you’d have a nice zoom range covered. The 55-250 is remarkably inexpensive for the high image quality that it produces… again, great resolution from center to edge of the frame, and low distortions. The only major downside is lack of USM in both cases (and a somewhat less-than-professional feel), but that’s not a big deal for many photographers.

There are, of course, better lenses… but not at anything near this price point, and optically, these lenses are great. The IS in both cases will help make up for the fact that they don’t have the widest maximum apertures.

Thanks Matthew, I suppose then that you won’t suggest me to buy the 70-200 F4L lens, I have two friends with this particular lens and they both like the lens. The 70-200 F4L IS cost nearly double the price would you rather go for it. Any way, I’ll have a look at all the options and I’ll definately let you know what I decide on. Time is running out for me as I only have 10 days to decide. Regards

I’d definitely get the 70-200 f4 if you can afford it along with another lens to cover the lower end of the range. The f4 and the f4 IS are both wonderful lenses, optically… a little better than the 55-250, no doubt, though the difference may be academic. I would be slightly concerned about the low-light capabilities of the f4 lens without IS, though… but only if you plan to be using it in lower light situations (obviously, raising your ISO will be an option to some extent).

However, if your choice is to get the 70-200 as your only lens, that would be hard to recommend unless your photographic needs are very specific and you only need telephoto. I’m sure that I don’t need to tell you that the even the 70mm end of the lens will act like a 112mm… and the 24-112 range would be hard for me to live without.

The author is definitely a Canon fan. I have tested both Cameras and although the Canon feels better in the hands and have a higher sensor resolution (difference not significant) the Nikon outperforms the Canon in many respects especially aparent in ISO tests.

Frustrating. That’s the only way to put it. For those not invested in brand, it’s very difficult to pull the trigger on a purchase.

For the price points, both these cameras fail in my opinion. I’ll explain. D7000 has hot pixel issues which can occur in video and possibly in stills. That’s what I’ve read on a 19 page blog talking about the issue. Plus Nikon is slow to admit error on this front. Shame on them. Also heard about like leak issues with their pro lens. The fix? Duct tape.

The 7D or 60D looks good on paper but from various legitimate sources I’ve read, the image quality is SOFT. Solution? Post processing. Seriously? I can expect that with my Lumix point-and-shoot but not a $1,500 DSLR rig. That’s unacceptable. On vacation I shoot over a thousand pics. I can’t see photo shopping each one and I don’t believe in batch processing for obvious reasons.

These are major points no matter your skill level. So now what? Do I plunk money down on a soft image quality heavy camera with good video or do I roll the dice with possible bad pixels, mediocre video, poor customer support and suspect quality control? Yes, frustrated is the word…

FWIW, I haven’t encountered any hot pixel issues during still photography with the D7000, only with video.I guess that’s not a glowing recommendation, exactly, but if your priority is photography, it helps.

On the other hand, I have to disagree about image softness with the 7D and 60D… depending on the lens. Unfortunately, the kit lenses for both cameras are optically pretty bad (for Canon). Anyone using the kit lenses should expect some softness, but that’s not the fault of the camera. I’ve found that with a good lens, images from the 7D appear sharper than those from the 5D Mark II before post processing.

Keep in mind, though, that all DSLRs us an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor, which basically blurs the image. Consequently, all images must be processed to achieve the best apparent sharpness. If you shoot jpg, this is done in-camera; but if you shoot RAW (and you should :) ), you’ll have to apply sharpening yourself at some point before publishing. In this regard, though, the 7D and 60D are no different than any other camera… at least, in my experience.

Hi! Thank you for your nicely detailed article. I’ve been tempted to switch to D7000, since I think I need usable ISO 3200 results, and since I’d love to have dual memory cards in-camera (being lazy that I am :p).

Hi Matt…after following this entertaining thread I feel compelled to chime in. While I believe much of the opinions here probably favor Canon products in general… not that it actually means anything in this vs. that. However after working with both cameras for the past month I can reliably say I prefer the abilities and IQ of the D7000. No one has mentioned the handling of these two mid level DSLR. The size, weight and ergonomics of the Nikon are superior in my hands. Everyone touts the 7D has a stronger chassis, but if you do the research you will find that some new age plastics are better at bangs and dents due to the resilience, and insulation properties. Yes nit picky, but true. The focus preciseness with similar lenses is quite a bit faster, less hunting in difficult situations and the 3D tracking is also more accurate on the D7000. (I shoot motorsports professionally) 5 fps second vs 8 is really not that important IMO. I prefer to lock in with a good double tap rather than pan a string of shots. Note the 7D dies at maximum speed in RAW quite quickly, albeit dual processors but seems it has buffer issues, I guess? As far as image quality they both have their signature process codes in RAW and both produce fine images. The D7000 tends to render extremely solid colors with greater depth and luminance, even after basic processing. (Capture NX 2 & Aperture 3.2) The 7D tends to underestimate the color and by default renders a somewhat softer saturation with hue trending towards the red end. I must say that above ISO 800 there is a noticeable difference in IQ if you peep with the D7000 producing cleaner pixel detail, lower noise and shadow color! Although this may not matter to some, it definitely has a result in ALL images when shooting, especially in low light scenes. The D7000 will almost focus in total darkness (focus assist lamp off) while the 7D would continuously hunt during the same scene. I am very fond of the shutter in the D7000, it is one of the quietest superbly damped shutters I have ever heard recently, Setting it to quiet mode is rangefinder quiet and is very handy during wedding shoots. The menu system is easier in the D7000 IMO as well. Video is comparable to my 5DM2 and I enjoy the auto focus of the D7000 if used in the right scenes, it is not perfect but far more accurate and certainly a plus as opposed to manual focusing during certain scenarios. So as far as I am concerned you cannot go wrong with either camera’s…but my opinion renders the D7000 on top of the 7D in numerous areas, important areas! All at $300 less…If you look at the kits…I feel (IMO) using both that the 18-105 VR lens out performs the 28-135 IS as well. These are just my opinions during my use with both bodies…you are welcome of course to perceive your own conclusions, mine remain firm.

Again sincere thanks Matt for all you do to keep this cool site running smoothly…

Thanks for the input! The more time that I’ve had to play with the D7000, the more impressed I am with it (though I still prefer the 7D). It’s always great to hear about other people’s experiences, though… and yours are well put.

Matthew, I had a chance to try the nikon D7000 and the Canon 7D. An observation I had, and I’ve seen this with ore nikon models vs canon models, is that images from the canon have a slightly orange-ish tint to it. Have you noticed this too? It looks to me that the colors are better for portraits and the skin tones look better. My wife, when looking between the canon and nikon images, with both on auto white balance, observes tha the canon pics look more puncture , colorful and lively. I tried the AWB2 setting on the nikon D7000, as also various other white balances and tried changing picture modes to vivid etc. Bit still found the canon to have more pleasing images. I couldn’t try the manual white balance.

Have you observed the same? If yes, could you let me know how this would impact nature photos as I couldn’t try those out in te shop?

I haven’t noticed that, but usually the first thing that I do when I try a new camera is create an accurate color profile for Camera Raw using an X-rite system, and I rarely shoot jpg. With RAW shooting, the camera’s white balance setting is essentially saved as meta-data and does not transform the actual data, so it’s really the conversion software that’s establishing the color. If you are shooting jpgs (and are consequently required to set the white balance in camera), then it wouldn’t surprise me that there would be some differences in the way that the sensors handle color, but I’m not sure exactly what they are :) The nice thing is that you’re not tied to them, since colors can always be corrected in post-processing if you shoot RAW or RAW+jpg.

Hi mathew, Thanks for ur response. I need your view on this issue, though, the question is still part of the one I asked earlier. I am about to make a decision to buy either 60D or 7D. I am in Nigera and the chances of laying my hand on any of this new tech is very slim. Considering the climate and economy, the major problem is dust coupled with heat. For the kind of job I will be doing ‘wedding and functions’ I need the type that will hold its own in any condition. Am buying the 15-85 and the latest Tamron 70-300 vc, I already have Ef 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8.

If you’re going to be shooting professionally and in harsh conditions, then I’d definitely recommend the 7D over the 60D, which is a great camera, but it’s really not built for professional use in harsh conditions. The 7D is better sealed for dust and moisture, and I’d probably be concerned about the articulated LCD on the 60D either breaking or gathering dust, or both. Sounds like you’ll have a good range of lenses, either way.

I thought that it was worth mentioning here that Nikon is aware of the hot pixel issue (most noticeable in live view and video) that many of you have commented on. They believe that the problem can be fixed with a firmware update, though there is not yet a date set for its release. This is what Nikon stated yesterday:

“We have received reports from some users of the Nikon D7000 digital SLR camera regarding the occurrence of noticeable bright spots with movie recording under certain conditions.

Nikon believes that these bright spots are not normally noticeable, and therefore do not indicate a problem with practical use. However, with further investigation of the reports received, we have confirmed that bright spots may be noticeable when recording movies of especially dark scenes or subjects.

In order to provide our customers with better products, Nikon is currently preparing to release a firmware upgrade with measures to reduce the occurrence of these bright spots for the D7000. Further details will be announced at a later date.”

Mathew, First of all I wanted to thank you for so much useful information and all of your commentaries on the choice of cameras and it’s details. I used to own canon Xti several years ago, with an 18-55 lens – it was a good camera, i liked it but i also felt that i was ready for the next step. I sold m xTi with all of it’s gear, because i wasn’t sure what I was going to get nikon or canon.

I have been wanting to buy a camera for several months now, I was waiting for 60D to come out. I finally saw it in person and realized that I didn’t like it – didn’t like the swivel screen, i think it’s not as durable and would easily break, and also I didn’t like the lock on the dial mode. My initial thoughts to get 60D have been wiped out pretty quickly. I started looking into other cameras, and learned that Nikon D7000 was also announced at the same time, however, the backorder is magnificents, and I dont know if there is a point for me to wait for the camera o be out. Nikon is known for making cameras but not keeping up with the demand/no producing anything.

The biggest dilema for me now is deciding if I want to get Nikon D7000 or Canon 7D, initially, i was going to get an 18-200 mm lens and also get either Canon 580 EX II Flash or Nikon SB900 Flash. After reading your forum, i am at a loss, I am not a professional andcertianllythe camera that i am purchasing will not serve as my bread and butter. The camera will actually be for taking pictures at family events, vacation, scenery, travel, kids pictures and etc, but most importanly my concern is which lens is better NIKON or CANON – which senson is better, what FLASH is better, which camera shoots better pictures in low lght, which camera has a sharper image and what would you recommend that I get? I am not necessarily stuck on 18-200 mm lens, but i do want one lens to carry around for all length/purposes walk around. I am not concerned about the money diference of $300, i am more concerned about the quality. Mathew, I look forward to your discussion / reply on my post. thanks a lot!

First of all, the neither the Nikon nor the Canon 18-200mm lens is optically that great. The problem with designing a lens with such a dramatic zoom range is that there have to be optical compromises, and both lenses have made them. The larger question of whether Canon or Nikon lenses are better is very difficult. Canon lenses tend to be less expensive, and in my experience, Canon tends to have better telephoto lenses and Nikon better wide angle, but there are enough exceptions that even that is a hard generalization to make.

Before I get too far into this answer, I should mention that I’m pretty busy with work this weekend, so I’ll have to attack this question in pieces. Since this post isn’t necessarily about the article above, it might be better suited to a forum topic of its own. If you have a chance, simply go up to the “Forum” tab at the top of the page, and start a new topic in the General Discussion section. You can just copy and paste your question, and we can take it from there.

Hey, I like your site and the way you respond. Great job, I want your advice on the choice am about to make btw two lenses “Ef-s 18-135 & EF 28-135” Which one is better and why not considering any wide angle comparison

Glad you’re finding the site useful! You pose an interesting question. For an APS-C sensor, the 28-135 isn’t the greatest zoom range, but its performance is pretty even and consistent. It’s a pretty old lens design; one of the first (if not THE first) Canon lenses with optical stabilization, so it’s not quite up to modern standards for IS performance or for resolution, but it’s solid… no real problems, but nothing really outstanding either. The 18-135 probably has superior resolution in the center of the image throughout the range, but it can be pretty soft at the borders (where the 28-135 is still moderately sharp), and the IS on the 18-135 is a bit better. Neither one is going to be a stellar performer, but both pretty good in their own way.

For more in depth details, you might consider checking some of the lens review sites, like photodo or photozone.de

For those of you who have been subscribed to this discussion and have not been getting email notifications, please let me apologize. After changing the domain name to lightandmatter.org, the email server was mis-configured, and nobody was getting emails (except for me).

It should be fixed now, so if you’re just getting this email for the first time in weeks… welcome back :)